London Business SchoolThis research tested the idea that the risk of exclusion from one's group motivates group members to engage in unethical behaviors that secure better outcomes for the group (pro-group unethical behaviors). We theorized that this effect occurs because those at risk of exclusion seek to improve their inclusionary status by engaging in unethical behaviors that benefit the group; we tested this assumption by examining how the effect of exclusion risk on pro-group unethical behavior varies as a function of group members' need for inclusion. A 2-wave field study conducted among a diverse sample of employees working in groups (Study 1) and a constructive replication using a laboratory experiment (Study 2) provided converging evidence for the theory. Study 1 found that perceived risk of exclusion from one's workgroup predicted employees' engagement in pro-group unethical behaviors, but only when employees have a high (not low) need for inclusion. In Study 2, compared to low risk of exclusion from a group, high risk of exclusion led to more pro-group (but not pro-self) unethical behaviors, but only for participants with a high (not low) need for inclusion. We discuss implications for theory and the management of unethical behaviors in organizations.

In 4 experimental studies, we show that customer verbal aggression impaired the cognitive performance of the targets of this aggression. In Study 1, customers' verbal aggression reduced recall of customers' requests. Study 2 extended these findings by showing that customer verbal aggression impaired recognition memory and working memory among employees of a cellular communication provider. In Study 3, the ability to take another's perspective attenuated the negative effects of customer verbal aggression on participants' cognitive performance. Study 4 linked customer verbal aggression to quality of task performance, showing a particularly negative influence of aggressive requests delivered by high-status customers. Together, these studies suggest that the effects of even minor aggression from customers can strongly affect the immediate cognitive performance of customer service employees and reduce their task performance. The implications for research on aggression and for the practice of customer service are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Utilizing role theory, we investigate the potential negative relationship between employees’ moral ownership and their creativity, and the mitigating effect of ethical leadership in this relationship. We argue that employees higher on moral ownership are likely to take more moral role responsibility to ensure the ethical nature of their own actions and their environment, inadvertently resulting in them being less able to think outside of the box and to be creative at work. However, we propose that ethical leaders can relieve these employees from such moral agent role, allowing them to be creative while staying moral. We adopt a multimethod approach and test our predictions in 2 field studies (1 dyadic-based from the United States and 1 team-based from China) and 2 experimental studies (1 scenario-based and 1 team-based laboratory study). The results across these studies showed: (a) employee moral ownership is negatively related to employee creativity, and (b) ethical leadership moderates this relationship such that the negative association is mitigated when ethical leadership is high rather than low. Moreover, the team-based laboratory study demonstrated that moral responsibility relief mediated the buffering effect of ethical leadership. We discuss implications for role theory, ethicality, creativity, and leadership at work.